TANNER AND ASSOCIATES, PC
  • Home
  • About
    • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Attorneys
    • Rod Tanner
  • News
  • Questionnaire

NLRB General Counsel’s New Initiatives Employees and Unions Should be Aware of

8/24/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
​In her first memo as General Counsel, published August 12, 2021, Jennifer A. Abruzzo outlined a new set of ambitious priorities that suggest many upcoming changes to current Board law, many of which would reverse Trump-era rulings largely pro-employer in nature. This blog will discuss some of the most significant initiatives addressed in section 2 of that memo.

Employee Status

The first initiative addressed involved cases involving the applicability of three Board decisions related to employee status:
  1. Velox Express, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 61 (2017), where the Board refused to find a violation based on an employer misclassifying drivers as independent contractors.
  2. Brevard Achievement Center, Inc., 342 NLRB 982 (2004), where the Board declined to extend the Act’s coverage to individuals with disabilities on the grounds that they were not employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act when working in a rehabilitative settin.
  3. Toering Electric Co., 351 NLRB 225 (2007), where the Board required a showing that an individual is someone genuinely interested in seeking to establish an employment relationship to prove entitlement to Section 2(3) status as an employee under the Act.

Employer Duty to Recognize and/or Bargain 

Abruzzo also addressed cases involving an employer’s duty to recognize and/or bargain with a union, specifically citing the following cases:
  1. The George Washington University Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 118 (2021), where the Board found surface bargaining lawful.
  2. Dubuque Packing Co., 303 NLRB 386 (1981), where the Board announced a new test in a refusal to furnish information related to a relocation whereby the burden is on the General Counsel to establish that the employer’s decision involved a relocation of unit work unaccompanied by a basic change in the nature of the employer’s operation.
  3. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 350 NLRB 585 (2007), where the Board permitted mid-term withdrawals of recognition where they occur after the third year of a contract of longer duration. Abruzzo explicitly noted the possibility of overruling this decision.
  4. Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263 (1949), where the Board held an employer could refuse to bargain with a union that claimed a majority of authorization cards only if the employer had a “good faith doubt” about the union’s claimed majority status.

Employees' Section 7 Right to Strike and/or Picket

The next initiative encompassed cases related to employees’ strike and picket rights:
  1. Hot Shoppes, 146 NLRB 802 (1964), where the Board addressed an allegation that an employer’s permanent replacement of economic strikers had an unlawful motive
  2. Wal-Mart Stores, 368 NLRB No. 24 (2019), where the Board broadly defined an intermittent strike
  3. Preferred Building Services, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 159 (2018), where the Board found employees picketed with a secondary object and lost the Act’s protection when they protested sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions
  4. Service Electric Co., 281 NLRB 633 (1986), where the Board allowed an employer to unilaterally set terms and conditions of employment for replacements even where those terms are superior to those that had been paid to striking unit employees

Employer Interference with Employees' Section 7 Rights

In a slightly broader topic, Abruzzo then turned to cases involving Section 7 rights more generally:
  1. Tri Cast, 274 NLRB 377 (1985), where the Board approved employer statements that employee access to management will be limited if employees opt for union representation
  2. Crown Bolt, 343 NLRB 776 (2004), where the Board presumed dissemination in cases involving an employer’s threat of plant closure where there is little evidence of dissemination to other employees
  3. Cordua Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019), where the Board found, among other things, that an employer does not violate the Act by promulgating a mandatory arbitration agreement in response to employees engaging in collective action 

What to Expect 

​In total, Abruzzo identified more than 40 Trump-era decisions that should be reconsidered, modified, or reversed, and further expressed an interest in reviewing many other areas of labor law. This is welcome news for labor organizations that have grown accustomed to the Trump board’s pro-employer agenda, restricting their ability to organize in the workplace and undermining workers’ bargaining rights.
With the recent appointments of Gwynne Wilcox and David Prouty, both union lawyers, and this new General Counsel set on returning the rights the prior administrations stripped from unions across the country, employees and unions can look forward to much needed changes.
Picture
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    May 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    November 2020
    May 2020
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015

    Categories

    All
    ADEA
    Age Discrimination
    Ask The Experts
    At Will Employment
    At-Will Employment
    Awards
    Best Lawyers
    Department Of Labor
    Discrimination
    EEOC
    Employment Contract
    Executive Order
    Fair Labor Standards Act
    FMLA
    Gender Discrimination
    Litigation
    Mandatory Arbitration Agreement
    National Labor Relations Act
    National Labor Relations Board
    NLRA
    Non Compete
    Non-Compete
    Northwestern
    Organization
    Overtime
    Papers
    Persuader Rule
    Podcast
    Religious Accommodation
    Service Contract Act
    Sexual Harassment
    Social Media
    Supreme Court
    Texas Employment Lawyers Association
    Title VII
    University Of Texas School Of Law
    Whistleblower

    RSS Feed

6300 Ridglea Place, Suite 407, Fort Worth, Texas 76116   |   817.377.8833 (phone)   |   817.377.1136 (fax)

​All potential clients are required to fill out an intake questionnaire before meeting with an attorney.

The information you obtain at this site or through any link on this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Every legal situation is different and you should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.  Please see the Terms of Use for more information.


© 2017 Tanner and Associates, P.C.